Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Society and history of class struggle
The evolution of political parties essay
The evolution of political parties essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Society and history of class struggle
The Wild Man from Sugar Creek: The Political Career of Eugene Talmadge, By William Anderson, Louisiana State University, 1975. xviii + 239pp. William Anderson presents a well-written history of the rise and fall of a Georgia demagogue, Eugene Talmadge. Anderson's narrative provides insight into Talmadge's popular support and how he orchestrated the perception of being a "man of the people." He also has a smooth flowing writing style that keeps the story moving and the reader interested in following along. Anderson shows how Talmadge was a complex personality holding seemingly contradictory ideas like most white men in the South at that time. Like Anderson says, "by no means could Eugene Talmadge be considered an integrationist" but he invited his African-American workers to eat lunch with him at his table in his home when he ran his farm in McRae, Georgia. He would allow blacks certain respect as long as they "kept their place." James Corley remembered that all the black people that "knew Gene liked him." Like most white men in Georgia, he held strong paternalistic ideas. Talmadge lived in a time when for the first time in Georgia's history less than half of her population was living on farms. Classical rural Georgia was changing along with the rest of the nation, albeit slower but it was faster than Talmadge and other paternalistic white males wanted or even recognized. Inadvertently Anderson gives us an even bigger lesson about politics in Georgia and the South in general. The Democratic Party was typically seen as the party of the downtrodden for poor farmers and other people who were economically depressed. The poor certainly saw them as their political savior. However, the party support only extended to white Georgians and particularly to white males without having their best interests at heart, only their best interests as perceived and allowed by the political elite. Some of the issues that made Talmadge disenfranchised with the Democratic Party under Roosevelt like setting wage levels, dependence on the federal government, fighting outside interference in "his" state, and especially desegregation subsequently forced many southern Democrats out of the party later. When the Democratic Party found itself without the paternalistic southern white male and the downtrodden white males' allegiance, it was forced to search for support from what they perceived to be the next group of downtrodden voters instead of redefining their issues.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
The author points out that southern societies did evolve, however, they resented this evolution. Foner uses the example of Southern Unionists to illustrate this point stating that, “In 1865, Southern Unionism, of whatever kind, did not imply a willingness to extend civil and political equality to the freedmen.” (Foner, 87) This resentment continues throughout the book, and shows that while evolution of Southern society happened, it was met with contentment, and individuals hope that things would go back to the way they used to be, hoping for the plantation slave way of life to return. This is most evident when Foner discusses the Ku Klux Klan, stating that “The Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.” (Foner,
...ain the “laid-back” attitude and shy away from social change. The irony of the political divide is the North is now Democratic and the South is Republican.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
People attending schools before 1960’s were learning about certain “unscrupulous carpetbaggers”, “traitorous scalawags”, and the “Radical Republicans”(223). According to the historians before the event of 1960’s revision, these people are the reason that the “white community of South banded together to overthrow these “black” governments and restore home rule”(223). While this might have been true if it was not for the fact that the “carpetbaggers were former Union soldiers”, “Scalawags… emerged as “Old Line” Whig Unionists”(227). Eric Foner wrote the lines in his thesis “The New View of Reconstruction” to show us how completely of target the historians before the 1960’s revision were in their beliefs.
...neth M. Goldstein, and William G. Howell. "Chapter 20 The Social and Economic Milieu of Texas Poltics." Understanding American Politics and Government. Texas ed. New York: Longman, 2010. 690-93. Print.
... The cause was forfeited not by Republicans, who welcomed the African-American votes, but to the elite North who had concluded that the formal end of slavery was all the freed man needed and their unpreparedness for the ex-slaves to participate in the Southern commonwealth was evident. Racism, severe economic depression, an exhausted North and troubled South, and a campaign of organized violence toward the freed man, overturned Reconstruction. The North withdrew the last of the federal troops with the passing of The Compromise of 1877. The freed slaves continued to practice few voting rights until 1890, but they were soon stripped of all political, social and economic powers. Not until the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s were the freedoms that were fought for by our Republican forefathers nearly 100 years before, finally seen through to fruition.
Del Testa, David W., Florence Lemoine, and John Strickland. Government Leaders, Military Rulers, and Political Activists. Westport, Conn: Oryx Press, 2001. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed November 10, 2013).
... states that, “in the 1870s, northern voters grew indifferent to the events in the South,” (Danzer, 1998). This proved that the North was clearly distracted and began to guide their focus away from Reconstruction, which happened in the South, to their own problems in the North. If the North had not been so preoccupied, they may have been able to focus on Reconstruction and perhaps extend the length of Reconstruction.
The separation of the south and north was not the only separation the United States was going through, the Democratic Party had split. The northern and southern democrats turn on each other. After several delegates walk out of the democratic convention, Douglas, who was not supposed to be put up as a nomination for president because he would not support the idea to make all states have slaves, was nominated for president. After the fact that Douglas was nominated without the entire Democratic Party consent, the southern democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge, who believed that all the states should have slavery, thus a split in the Democratic Party. (Foner,496)
Parsons, L. H. (2009). The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The end of the Civil War left many questions for both the North and the South. The federal government was faced with the responsibility of rebuilding the South and reuniting the country politically, economically, and culturally. At the war’s end, the country was left to grapple with 200,000 deaths and over a million casualties, more than any other war for the United States, either past or since[1]. The turbulence of the era left the countryside and the economy of the South in ruins. Plantation owners, the antebellum economic lords who ruled with an iron fist, were financially devastated by the war. Confederate currency was worthless, free slave labor was outlawed, and the federal government confiscated many acres of plantation land. In addition to rebuilding the Southern economy and its infrastructure, the federal government had to address the situation of newly freed blacks. Though Southern blacks had gained their freedom in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, they still faced great economic and social hardship as they struggled to make a living and find their niche in Southern society. While the Radical Republicans pushed for the full equality of blacks, they faced staunch opposition from Southern Democrats and more moderate Republicans. While the period of Reconstruction figured as a time of increased freedom and equality for southern blacks, it was ultimately only a temporary condition, as the power of the Southern Redeemers and the waning support of northern Republicans resulted in the reinstitution of white domination. With the end of slavery, Southern whites eventual...
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
...ding the Jacksonian Democrats. Even government authorized establishments lent a hand in the continuation of slavery, such as the Post Office. It honored a request from the South Carolina legislature in 1835 to prevent the transmission of anti-slavery propaganda into the state. The Jacksonian Democrats, in attempts to guard the Constitution, had missed some points, such as "all men are created equal."
Williamson, Joel. William Faulkner and Southern History. New York: Oxford UP, 1993. Questia. Web. 14 Feb. 2014.